No relief for man who lied about marital status to actor, faces rape case: HC

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday refused to exonerate a city resident being prosecuted for raping a Marathi actor on the ground that he induced her to marry him by misrepresenting that he was a bachelor.

According to the police, the accused, Siddharth Banthia, married the actor in Versova in 2010, two years after they met through a common friend. It was only two months after the wedding that Banthia’s wife called the actor to inform her that Banthia was married and had two children. When the actor confronted him about his wife, Banthia claimed that they were divorced. He later also produced some documents to prove their divorce but admitted that they were fake after his wife came after their first ‘wedding’ anniversary.

In 2013, the actor eventually reported Banthia to the Dattawadi police station in Pune, accusing him of rape. After the Pune sessions court rejected his request to dismiss the case in September 2021, Banthia appealed to the high court.

Lawyer Aishwarya Kantawala, appearing for the actor, pointed out that the accused pretended to be the actor’s lawfully Counsel for the actor, advocate Aishwarya Kantawala, however, pointed out that Banthia cohabited with the actor pretending to be her lawfully married husband and attracted section 375 (4) which refers to consent for sex with a man who a woman believes to be her lawfully married husband, and the man knows that he is not.

Banthia claimed that the marriage ceremony and the anniversary celebrations were merely props as the actor induced him to perform the role of “husband” for a programme to be aired, and Banthia performed the role, as he was “fond of film and television industry.” The judge didn’t buy the story.

Justice N J Jamadar accepted the actor’s contention.

“Since the petitioner (Banthia) allegedly solemnized the marriage with the prosecutrix (actor), during the lifetime of his wife, the marriage was, thus, void,” said justice Jamadar while dismissing his plea for discharge. The judge said the accused knew he was not her husband and yet had physical relations with her by pretending to be her lawfully married husband and therefore there is substance in the actor’ submission that she would not have given consent but for the belief induced by him by falsely representing that he was unmarried.